Bernard,
With all due respect, that doesn't change the fact that CSteadman is correct. A little DD on my part and I'd soon have uncovered the presence of Mr. Green's book, along with(no doubt) Mr. Gilders tout of same on his website, myself. I'm surprised you've said what you've said here, but I'm not at all surprised Mr. Gilder had already acknowledged Paul Green(and likely more thoroughly than we've documented here).
You wrote, "Another slightly irritating aspect of George Gilder's
reports is that he rarely acknowledges original
material that he draws from. He has been right on
in the area of optical networking, but his inspiration
can be found in Paul Green's papers."
You continued with a little Bio. on Green and pointed to his(here I defer to your recollection), shall we say- Dumb Pipe Papers?- as if you were enlightening those from whom Mr. Gilder had hidden the truth. Good Grief man! How wrong can you be before you just come out and say "whoops, sorry!?"
I accept that George G irritates you and that your irritation is worthy stuff, but please don't manufacture things out of whole cloth, slighting quite wrongly the writings, nature, and ego of a man, Achh...! It wasn't pretty to see when you replied:
"Gilder may be mentioning green's book, but there are two survey papers in the mid 90's where Green was talking about dumb networks, the idea taken up by Gilder afterwards."
"But", schmut! I suspect he could reference every paper he ever read, every conversation/interview he ever had, complete with specific individual recaps of each, in every single monthly GTR he ever passes out, and you'd still speak of the way he "seldom"(bg) gives anyone else any credit. It's just silly, IMO. Anyone can count the name drops and credits he offers and find them "abundant," which is of course, a matter of critical importance to George, as you may not realize. BG
I'm compelled to add that for all we know- Paul Green, George Gilder, and numerous possible others had discussed(with whomever) the "dumb pipes" concept prior to the writing of Green's papers, which you now cite as though their existence pointed to some Gilder shortcoming. If nothing else, this exercise points out that he never was alone in his thinking, and never had a notion to pretend to be. He picked up a sword and he's been honest about it(even when he is wrong). Big whoop, eh?
Between the original clearly false "Green" post, and this latest suspicious reply, it begins to look as if you are GREEN indeed. Envious perhaps Bernard? VBG,JMHO
Freedom works,
Dan B |
